United States District Court Judge Gary Feess didn’t rush into a decision regarding lifting the consent decree this week.

He extended the federal court order on the Los Angeles Police Department for two weeks only to give him time to mull over the proposal for a two-year transition agreement worked out by the Justice Department and the LAPD. Otherwise, it would have expired this week.

It’s fine for a judge to make thoughtful, informed decisions. In this case, he should make the right one: ending the court order.

It’s not as if the reforms made over the past eight years will go away. The LAPD will transition to self-reform through the Inspector General’s Office and the Police Commission with the help of the feds over two years.

The original consent decree was for five years but Feess extended it three years ago because the department had failed to implement several of the most significant reforms.

That’s not the case now. Indeed, the city endured threats and a lawsuit from the police officers’ union to get the final financial disclosure piece in place last year. It has spent millions upon millions of dollars enacting the reforms.

The independent consent decree monitor, the U.S. Justice Department and the LAPD – the three key parties in developing and implementing reforms over the past eight years – all agree that the department ought to be released from the consent degree. Indeed, independent monitor Michael Cherkasky, says not doing so will have a detrimental effect on a police force.

“Now is the psychological breakpoint,” he told the judge in urging the end of the consent decree. We agree. The LAPD has come a tremendously long way under the court order; the department can – and should – go the rest of the way on its own.